Jaq , Hitler did really make a HUGE amount of HUGE mistakes in the war. The was one of the reasons the plot of Hitlers assasination was created. The plotters actually wanted to replace Hitler with Rommell (The desert Fox). Also Germany could have just delayed the war a few years so it could train pilots/soldiers and build more and better planes/tanks/msiiles/bombs.
The Russians did a good job at holding back the Germans on the eastern front, mainly thank's to the T-34. In 1943, the Germans produced around 5000 Tiger tanks, while the Russians built over 40,000 T-34's. Many German commanders wanted to build their own version of captured T-34's, as it was tough and reliable, but Hitler rejected this plan. In the end, quantity finally overcame technology.
Smart bombs are great for their purpose but there will always (at least in the forseeable future) be a place for 'dumb' bombs.
The A-10 is not going to be retired anytime soon, though I can ask specifically for you.
To Jaq,
Victor, I believe I see what you are trying to say, but the example is still confusing.
I heard something today about the A10. I caution that this is also just a rumor, however this rumor comes from 2 A-10 national guard pilots and verified by 2 more active duty A-10 pilots (I call it a rumor since I have nothing but these several pilot's words).
well u guys i just wanted 2 say that i heard that the Marine Corps are putting a GAU-13(an upgrated version of the GAU-8 that the A-10 uses 4 those of u who don't know) on their JSF but as 4 the air force the are reluctant 2 use anything but the 20mm or the 27mm Masuer cannons. As 4 the use of 30mm by the russians and the 20mm by the americans it's because the US thinks that it's more efficient to build smaller caliber cannons
does anyone still chat on this service?
Chef,
Back to the Bombs, Remmember that in any mayor war there are times that there is practically no airdefence over a specific target. I'm not saying that smart bombs shouldn't be used, what I am saying is that the U.S. is progresivelly losing the capability to drop dumb bombs efficiently and safely. And is therefore progresivelly reliying more and more exclusively on smart bombs. Finally the best way to solve the smar/dumb bomb problem is allways to have a healthy balance of both kinds of weapons never relying too much on one or the other.
Spade out
By Michael on Thursday, June 10, 1999 - 01:27 am:
BUT (I know it never happened), had the Germans, as Jaq said, attacked one enemy at a time and concentrated forces, perhaps things would look different (thank god that never happened:)
As long as heavy bombers still exist, I am sure that dumb bombs will still be around for a while. The main purpose of bombers today, is to instil a shock effect on enemy ground forces. If you have B-52's drop bombs at over 40,000ft, you do not hear them flying over you. Only the bombs whistling down at the last few seconds, is what you will hear. Or immagine a B-1 over your position, flying at less than 100ft at over 650mph-dropping bombs. That will scare the hell out of anyone.
I am sure that smart bombs and missiles will supplement the dumb bombs of today and tommorow. With the introduction of the GPSII system, we will see more smart bombs around, but if the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps are smart, they will keep a large quantity of dumb iron bombs around.... we'll see...
Michael
By luke on Thursday, June 10, 1999 - 08:02 pm:
I asked earlier but no one responded.... does anyone have any official type info. that says the A-10 is going to be retired anytime soon? (I do not consider being replaced by the JSF to be soon - that will take at least 15 years)
By Tiger on Friday, June 11, 1999 - 03:25 am:
As for ballistic bombs, yes, they will continue to use ol' iron bombs because they have their uses. Guided bombs and smart bombs are used for high threat areas where loiter time and accuracy are paramount to the survival of the A/C, as they may be dropped in level flight or even during evasive maneuvers. Iron bombs are much more difficult to drop.
There's an old joke that goes:
"For high altitude bombing, you want smart bombs, but strangely enough, for low altitude run, pilots prefer retarded bombs..."
Just so it ain't quite so vague, by retarded they mean high drag. The bomb reaches detonation point long after the A/C has flown out of the blast radius.
Anyways, I'll leave it at that.
Tiger, out.
By Victor on Friday, June 11, 1999 - 02:19 pm:
i know that this was a while ago, but just to clarify a message, the 240mm and the 120mm are both anti-tank guns, hauled by trucks or bulldozers. They are NOT mounted on tank chassis.
Victor
By Jaq on Friday, June 11, 1999 - 04:14 pm:
#1-you don't need a gun that big to kill a tank, 4x the cost for something not needed is stupid.
#2 Does it increase the survivability of the platform its on? Does it protect its base any better? NO, why pay 4x as much if these benefits are not seen.
#3- if it had an increased range, then paying more may be worth it. But flat ground would be needed for many miles, and these guns are most likely line of site. Hence a doubling in range will not produce a doubling of kill area always. Not worth it.
#4- is it a better weapon, ignoring costs and production and storage concerns, not by much, if at all.
I remember hearing of a 100 megaton H-bomb built by Russia. This is overkill (like the 240mm gun, it is not needed today, or tomorrow).
Now, unlike the 240mm anti-tank gun, Laser adn GPS bombs have enormus advantages over iron bombs when used in the right situation. The 240mm gun has almost no advantages mentioned except its size.
#1- No dumb bomb in the world can be dropped from 20,000 and kill its target with and considerbale probablity of a hit (maybe like .1% chance of kill). Laser and GPS can. This is important for survivability of the plane.
So already the smart bombs have a major advantage over dumb ones. Increased survivability.
#2 No dumb bomb can be dropped from that height at 20km (or 2km worst situation) and hit the target. GPS can.
Increased survivability.
#3, back in WW2, many missions with many B-17's were sent to kill German targets. Well these planes dropped hundreds of bombs and the target still lived. Take into account the fuel used on the mission, losed bombers, fighters used for escort, the fighters fuel and ammo, lost fighters, and the cost rise quickly.
Today 1 plane with 1 bomb on 1 mission can take out the same target (or more bombs if its big, but still 1 plane, 1 mission). yes you could do the same with dumb bombs, but high value targets are guarded, and ask the tornado pilots from desert strom what happens when a plane flies low over a guarded target.
Now against a large enemy in the field smart bombs still have an excellent use even though they cost so much. Now to destroy this armored group, I'd sometimes prefer helicopters, but this time we've got to use planes. Send in Stealth (like an F-22, JSF, F-117, B-2) planes first. Knock out moblie AAA and SAM vehciles. Then send in the cheaper planes, A-10's, F-16's, and our future cheap (and also stealth) JSF with dumb bombs to take out the tanks and trucks. There is still the threat of small arms and shoulder fired SAMs, but by knocking out the other defenses, the threat has been dramatically reduced, which means more of you planes will be coming home.
And in a better situation even the second wave would still use smart bombs, resulting in even more planes coming home. Since the moblie SAMs and AAA are gone RCS won't really matter, the major threat will be from visual and IR guided weapons, so load JSF's will smart bombs externally. F-22 may be able to carry as many as Six GPS bombs, and still carry 2 AIm-120's and 2 AIM-9X, if these GPS can be stored outside, but that's not the F-22's job.
Well smart bombs are good. Dumb bombs are still needed, and bombing missions are still flown by pilot-in-training of the USAF with dumb bombs. the USAF decided that relying on only dumb bombs was, well, dumb. Smart bombs have their place, adn there is no way the USAF is likely to give up smart bombs.
The A-10, if it goes it will be sad. Well, I do not believe thsi plane should go either. Instead I believe that, while a completely new design would be nice, new airframes of A-10's should be bought as old ones wear out. But in addtion the plane could be improved, and not turn it into an expensive fighter. Armor, navigation, IR signature, there's lots that could be imporved. Undoubtedly the USAF should be thinking if not doing this. Other improvements could be the data transfer systems(if not there) for obvious reasons, especially with JSTARS. It would improve A-10 performance drastically. But as I said earlier, the USAF should buy new frames and upgrade. Its a great plane in its role and in my opinion shouldn't go, and, even with all the rumors, hasn't left yet.
Sorry, I talk too much, I'm outta here
By luke on Friday, June 11, 1999 - 05:26 pm:
They said that the A-10 is just beginning an avionics upgrade package including improvements to the INS already installed, GPS, and a fully glass cockpit. I do not know if a radar is going to be installed or not.
Again, this is just what I was told by some pilots. If anyone else has any pertinent info that would be great.
By stan on Friday, July 2, 1999 - 05:15 pm:
while the russians want something just as accurate
but more powerful. both sides have a point.
By chef on Saturday, April 20, 2002 - 08:32 pm:
if so...why didn't thepowers in be ever think to
use a television remotely controlled weapon eg:
German Mistel weapons for an anti-shipping or anti
industrial purpose....sorry....to clarify this is
pertaining to the discussion on ww2 matters.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about industrila
applications and logistics in germany during that
period and the more I look into it the more
fascinating it all becomes...they had the
capability alright...but it was the guys in
control...what was their agenda to purposely keep
Germany on a negative standing...great thoughts
for conspiracy buffs...did the allies have a good
double agent in there doing some supe
By Whareagle on Friday, April 26, 2002 - 01:15 pm:
In answer to your first question, I think people still check in on the posts, but the dialogue has died out over the last year, as the number of aircraft conflicts have homogenized and the number of builders continues to dwindle or merge. Heck, think about it; the Koreans just bought brand new F-15's!! A 35 year old design! Of course, A-10's, where your post is located, have just been sent to Afghanistan... That's my opinion...
About the TV guided weapons, well, I think versions of the Maverick and some LGB's like the GBU-15 have the capability. Nowadays, however, it's not as necessary, since mm wave radar, lasers, ir-sighting and gps-based drop systems pretty much do the job. I don't think there were any conspiracies preventing Germany from building these weapons; I think they lacked the ability to generate advanced-technology products en masse. FW190's were simple; V-2's were actually simple. But 1000 TV guided rockets and Heinkel medium bombers to launch them was probably logistically impossible.
My 2 cents...